On Nov 26, 2007, at 5:13 AM, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>> The proposal was solely for use in functional syntax.
>
> That's probably OK - although I am unclear how abstract or concrete
> the functional syntax is meant to be. If it is merely an internal
> notation for the WG, then whatever we do is OK, but in such a case
> we wouldn't really have an issue (I don't think). I take it that
> this is intended to impact some software, but which software?
The OWLAPI, at least, which accepts functional syntax and outputs RDF/
XML or whatever you want. I've used the abstract syntax (or rather a
thin lispy layer on top of it) to generate OWL for some time now.
-Alan